Difference between revisions of "Talk:Metapedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(What's wrong with a Euro-centric Point of View?)
(What's wrong with a Euro-centric Point of View?: Removed Unsigned, badly written and badly formatted rant.)
 
Line 41: Line 41:
 
: I agree that the reference to JPEGs is not necessary.  As for the second point, it's clear that TerryH ''has'' deleted something (presumably an IP address), although I don't understand how it came to be there.  The "log in" link shows that he was not logged in, but when I look at the site, in both IE and Firefox, both on Windows, no IP shows up there.  So I don't know why it did for TerryH.  Given that it did, however, I don't have a problem with that particular disclaimer point.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 
: I agree that the reference to JPEGs is not necessary.  As for the second point, it's clear that TerryH ''has'' deleted something (presumably an IP address), although I don't understand how it came to be there.  The "log in" link shows that he was not logged in, but when I look at the site, in both IE and Firefox, both on Windows, no IP shows up there.  So I don't know why it did for TerryH.  Given that it did, however, I don't have a problem with that particular disclaimer point.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 
::Oh, ''now'' I see it. I can explain that one, actually. The IP shows up only under certain conditions: Go to the site (or any other wiki you're not logged in to, from what I know) and click on the "Log in" link (or any link that leads to the "Login required to edit" screen, such as a redlink). From that moment on, until you close the tab/window, the IP will be displayed there. As long as you're a nice lurker and never try to log in or hit redlinks, you won't see your IP up there. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 
::Oh, ''now'' I see it. I can explain that one, actually. The IP shows up only under certain conditions: Go to the site (or any other wiki you're not logged in to, from what I know) and click on the "Log in" link (or any link that leads to the "Login required to edit" screen, such as a redlink). From that moment on, until you close the tab/window, the IP will be displayed there. As long as you're a nice lurker and never try to log in or hit redlinks, you won't see your IP up there. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 23:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
 
== What's wrong with a Euro-centric Point of View? ==
 
 
What the hell is wrong with a Euro-centric point of view?
 
 
The Europeans brought culture, intelligence, enlightenment, freedom, created the modern world that we live in today, and that is somehow conducive of a racist point of view, even though that IS how pretty much history happened!
 
 
That is not racism! Euro-centric point of view is not a bad one to have, especially considering that the Muslim immigrants are subverting that point of view over in Europe and being of a viewpoint of preserving original European culture makes you a "racist?" I think not because the real racists are the white guilt people that hate everything GOOD that our founders gave to the rest of the uncivilized world in the rest of the world and gave the world enlightenment, progress, and real humanity. Is this really "racism?" You fail to mention anything about the white ARYAN viewpoint of Metapedia and use the liberal terminology of "Euro-centric" point of view of preserving your culture as being "racism" when in fact, they are about preserving WHITE ARYAN RACIAL PURITY! Please do not use far-left biased terminology.
 
 
And NO I am NOT a White Supremacist racist bigot! I am just stating facts! I do not self-hating garbage that lumps in people who think that European culture is really great and really benefited humanity and its progress over the last few centuries as being a sign of being like these Nazi bastards (Am I allowed to use bad language here?) on Metapedia.
 
 
Please get your facts straight.
 
 
Europeans brought so much goodness to the rest of the world that you are gonna say that anyone with a Euro-centric point of view is a white-supremacist racist? That is the same guilt of liberal guilt propaganda that most mainstream conservatives criticize liberals over on a daily basis. I am highly proud of European culture, does that make me a white supremacist racist?
 
 
I do not think so, NOT WHEN I USE IT AS A RHETORICAL TOOL TO HATE PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES AND ETHNICITIES AND PROCLAIM THAT THEY ARE INFERIOR, while violating the principles of EQUALITY AND ALL THAT PREVALENT from these EUROPEAN ideals and all th
 
 
I'll just be a self-hating liberal idiot who hates white people all the time and lumps in racially-tolerant people proud of their European cultural heritage in with Neo-Nazi bigots like Metapedia! Thank you, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER!
 
 
This is the same kind of garbage I'd expect the kind like Morris Dees to propagate.
 
 
I'm saying that I could have a pro-European view of culture and be proud of all Europeans have given the rest of the world and all its wonderful civilizing of the rest of the world and all who live in it, AND NOT BE AN ARYAN PSEUDOSCIENCE-PROMOTING ARYAN RACIAL BLOOD PROMOTING IDIOT LIKE THEY ARE!
 
 
Do you see?
 
 
Having a EURO-CENTRIC POINT OF VIEW, is NOT NECESSARILY RACISM!
 
 
Please avoid using loaded terms, like Euro-centric and replace them with white-supremacist and terms like that.
 
 
Thank you.
 
 
 
Please be more specific when referring to Euro-centric deep love of European culture and all its grandure and glory and civilization IN WITH NEO-NAZIS AND NOT LUMP US IN WITH THEM! THANK YOU!
 
 
Being proud of European culture IS NOT racism, it is only racism when it is used to belittle and racially insult people of other races and other cultures! Only then! I do not care what the halfwits at Wikipedia say about that to smear you as "white supremacist" when I am anything but, and that is HOW HISTORY HAPPENED and no amount of self-hating far-left revisionist BS can change that, that Europeans brought some much civilization and greatness to the rest of the world and we got the modern culture that we live in today, thanks to them and preserving that culture, AS OPPOSED TO THE RACIAL BS, makes you a racist!
 
 
 
That is NOT RACISM!
 
 
Preserving European culture and all its greatness and achievements IS NOT RACISM!
 
 
 
 
I am NOT in favor of Aryan ideology, but kick me off here if you think that I am a racist for preserving the greatness and achievements our ancestors laid down for the rest of the world and gave us the world we live in today, compared to fools who wrap themselves up with this nonsense to promote a racist cause of theirs, behind this propaganda!
 
 
WHETHER OR NOT METAPEDIA OR NEO NAZIS BELIEVE IT IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY NEED THIS TO FORM THEIR PROPAGANDA SHIELD OF DEPENDENCY OF A SHIELD OF A HOLY MISSION TO WRAP THEMSELVES AROUND TO MAKE THEMSELVES SEEM HEROIC, SEEM GREAT, like they are the preservers of white culture, when in fact they only care about the Aryan racist ideology of Adolf Hitler.
 
 
Hitler WAS REVERED as a national hero for many years in Germany for bringing economic miracles and a sense of renewed purpose for Germany, but does that make me an Aryan Nazi for pointing out in fact, he was and Germans revered him as such, and Hitler is HATED as a person in Germany, precisely because of the Holocaust and his racist Nazi pseudoscientific racist Aryan eugenics, bad Aryan diluted by bad blood, Aryan unhealthy Aryan, diluted by racially inferior bad blood of other cultures and pseudoscientific BS of Adolf Hitler.
 
 
Does that make me a "NAZI?" for pointing that out? No, it does not. You are being vague and unspecific about the whole Euro-centric crap and you sound like ones of those self-hating far-left liberal people that hates America and European Western culture for just being Western and civilized and bringing greatness to the rest of the world, and hating its values because of the RACISM of these people, rather that the values that they promoted to make the world better as we know it and WE MUST CONDEMN THE RACISM OF METAPEDIA and stuff like it, but we must remember WHO WE REALLY ARE AND THAT PRESERVING EUROPEAN CULTURE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND ITS HUMANITARIAN CIVILIZING ACHIEVEMENTS IS NOT RACISM!
 
 
 
 
Hitler BECAME HATED AS THE EVIL DICTATOR we know him today as, because of his Aryan BS and the Holocaust and all his swirling vicious circle of hate and violence, theft, terror, and destruction known as World War II.
 
 
GEERT WILDERS HAS THIS EXACT SAME POINT OF VIEW I DO, and is HE A WHITE SUPREMACIST ARYAN NEO-NAZI LIKE METAPEDIA? I THINK NOT!
 
 
This is not racism to love European culture or be Euro-centric and preserve European culture, compared to stupid fools like Metapedia that need a cause to promote to make their racist ideals seem reputable and intelligent and seem like a holy crusade.
 
 
No one has discredited European-centric ideals or anything like that, JUST ARYAN NAZI-centric racial racist policies like them. I do not see that pro-European view as being a racist one, just that it is racist when it is used to belittle and mock other cultures with an Aryan bad viewpoint and racially discriminate against them, only then, DO I DISAGREE WITH A PRO-EUROPEAN VIEW, wrapped up in the stupid propaganda of sites like Metapedia and other white supremacist hate sites, I only disagree with it, if Euro-centric and pro-European views are used with pseudoscientific and incorrect BS Aryan Nazi beliefs like Metapedia and others.
 
 
IT is not racism to be proud of being European and loving European, enlightened and intelligent culture!
 
 
White pride is just a propaganda slogan peddled out by these fools to make themselves seem seem like preserving white culture and preserving white racial purity, with pseudoscientific Aryan beliefs and all the other crap these fools believe in, to make themselves seem like the defenders of the white race, when in fact they are violent, ignorant, and stupid moronic little idiots who are the most narrow-minded band of street thugs that are neurotic and paranoid and have little influence, compared to those PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF THAT LOVE EUROPEAN CULTURE AND ALL ITS GREATNESS AND BEING LUMPED IN WITH NAZI IDIOTS LIKE THEM IS NOT ONLY STUPID, IT IS ''WRONG'''''Bold text'''!
 
 
I am in favor of preserving the white culture that brought civilization to the world, not necessarily white racism or ARYAN NAZI BS like Metapedia or the racial discrimination of Metapedia and the KKK embodying like that stuff! I am not in favor of preserving the white pure racial blood of our culture or whites above others, just merely against the white supremacist racism that treats different races like total garbage and shouldn't rise to their position just because they are not white, or because they have to suffer because they are not white, or any of that. I do not believe in any of that bull and in fact, I tolerate people of other races and NOT THE BS of the KKK and all that crap!
 
 
You see what I'm saying?
 
 
It is not racist, nor racism to deeply love European culture and all its greatness!
 
 
It is only racism to use it to discriminate against other cultures and people of those cultures because they are of that culture or ethnicity.
 
 
It is not racism to love European culture and identity. It is racism to use it to discriminate against minority groups and people like that and then promote Aryan Nazi pseudoscienftic hate garbage like the kind Metapedia is.
 
 
Don't you see?
 
 
I AM NOT A RACIST AND IT IS NOT RACIST, NOR BIGOTED TO DEEPLY LOVE AND ADMIRE THE EUROPEAN CULTURE OR HAVE A EURO-CENTRIC WESTERN POINT OF VIEW, LIKE THIS SITE SO HAS, yet this site has a pro-Western view BECAUSE WE ARE WESTERNERS AND SEE THE WORLD THAT WAY AND WE DO NOT NEED FAR-LEFT SELF-HATING SCUM TO TELL US OTHERWISE, DO WE?
 
 
Michael Savage believes this. Just listen to him on occasion and he is anything but a white supremacist, because he's Jewish obviously.
 
 
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY OF THAT WHITE PRIDE CRAP SLOGANS THESE IDIOTS PEDDLE, EITHER!
 
 
 
 
Accuse me of racism or all that, but THAT IS HOW IT IS!
 
 
We cannot change it and we must embrace it. I am NOT in favor of the Aryan Nazi ideology or that of a narrow bigot like Adolf Hitler, who you guys proclaim as being of the left, the self-hating garbage peddled as a Euro-centric view by this site is the same kind of narrow bigotry I expect from liberals that deeply hate everything Western, done by white people and achieved by white people because they perceive WRONGLY that it came from racist and bigoted white folks, so it is no longer relevant and must be destroyed for their self-hating garbage that they peddle and because it is done by dead white males and how they use the racism of the past as an excuse to dismantle and destroy the Western European-loving culture that we love so much and brought greatness to the world!
 
 
I AM NOT A NAZI NOR A SUPREMACIST!
 
 
IT IS NOT RACISM!
 
 
 
I am not in favor of white supremacy!
 

Latest revision as of 04:46, 31 January 2013

Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site?

It seems like "highly provocative" is a euphemism for racist hate-speech. How can any responsible person condone inviting impressionable kids to visit the site, as in "Anyone who wishes to investigate Metapedia for himself is invited to do so". I'm taking this line out, and anyone who feels it's appropriate for kids to visit a hate site needs to justify it here before reverting. --DinsdaleP 15:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I think people should be informed (read: warned) about this site because it's racism and Holocaust Denial, disguised as "just another wiki encyclopedia". However, I'm somewhat confused why our article starts out so extremely tame and only sorta-kinda points out the real identity of this site later on. The intro should really say that this is a site that pushes historical revisionism and racism.
And I completely agree that we shouldn't encourage people to visit this site. At all. What would parents say if they discovered that their children visited a racist site? And what would they say if they were told that THIS site encouraged their kids to do so?
I would also ask somebody with Upload rights to scrub the URL from the screenshots. It's silly to say that linking to the site is forbidden when the URL is plainly visible in apparently all images of the gallery. --DirkB 15:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
What's ridiculous is that certain wikis are forbidden to be mentioned or linked to from CP because they express non-conservative views while claiming to be rational, and you don't see articles about them with screen captures to show why it's inappropriate. Yet somehow, it's okay to devote an article full of euphemisms and screen captures with the URL to a hate-speech wiki that disguises itself as "alternative". I wonder just who from "the administration" is willing is willing to put their names on the record as being for the not-so-subtle promotion of this site on CP. --DinsdaleP 15:59, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm willing to Assume Good Faith for the moment, but when comparing this to some other extremely bold "We expose the truth!" articles (like the ones about Obama, Wikipedia, etc.), it does look "carefully worded".
The article does need work, even when you ignore these issues. I'll try to aid in the clean-up without being overly "controversial". --DirkB 16:05, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm in two minds. On the one hand it's an nasty, deceitful little site. It tries to look reasoned and rational, slips in little insuations, then little half truths, then full blown Nazi lies. On the other hand: looking at this site and reviewing just how it tries to go about it's foul purpose would be a very good exercise to innoculate students against some of the more insidious deceit that's put there. Anyway I think the article should either be deleted (no great loss!) or it should "tell it how it is" (I've put something in to that effect) --Toffeeman 17:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I appreciate your point, but then why aren't there pages on CP devoted to constructively analyzing and refuting other websites and wikis that represent differing views with regard to atheism, liberal values, pro-choice policies, etc.
At the risk of earning a block, I'll just come out and say it - there seems to be an unusual effort being made with this article, as opposed on the one for Stormfront, for instance, to treat it like it simply presents "alternative" views instead of being a hate site, and then inviting the young readers of Conservapedia to visit it themselves! We don't need hate sites to be marketed to impressionable young minds here. --DinsdaleP 18:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure that TerryH didn't intend the "invitation" to be an encouragement for children to visit Metapedia. Rather, it was saying that people needn't just take Conservapedia's word for it, but can check the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, despite that good intention, it wasn't worded the best, and I support its removal. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

This kinda reminds me of one of the few Futurama episodes I actually watched (I still want to watch them all, but time never happens to be on my side, somehow):
Leela: [hands Fry a note] This. You for this.
Fry: Thanks. [blows nose on note, then throws it in fireplace]
Leela: No! [reaches into fire] Ow! Fire hot!
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: The professy will help. [reaches into fire] Ahh! Fire indeed hot!
(Nooooo! Not the punishment stick! It's all in good fun!)
I guess your assumption about Terry's intention is correct, but I think in this case, it really is better not to encourage people. Those who really want to find out more will know how to use Google, so we don't have to give the rest silly ideas. Not even to mention what might happen if people use school/work computers to follow "our suggestion"...
And a possible alternative to "Just take our word" would be to find more sources to back our claims. The article already has a few, but I guess we can dig out more and then spread them more evenly. We'll figure something out :) --DirkB 23:37, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'm not accusing TerryH of targeting children directly, but this wiki was founded by and (originally) for homeschoolers as a trustworthy resource. Why the need, then to talk this site up so much compared to the article here on StormFront? Was there really a need for multiple screen captures so that the readers here can absorb and become curious about some of the content there? I agree that we should not stick our heads in the sand, and should stand up to oppose sites like this, but then why not feature the KKK site here and include screen captures, or do the same for the dreaded r-wiki and show screens from there to explain why it's dismissed here? I'm sorry, but unless this is trimmed to the level given Stormfront, I can't help but feel that the real intent was to get people curious about the "alternate" views expressed there, provide samples, and encourage direct visits. This is not what the parents of homeschooled kids would expect from a trustworthy encyclopedia. --DinsdaleP 11:42, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

My understanding from TerryH was that the screenshots were to provide evidence in support of the claims, so that no-one could claim that Conservapedia has misrepresented Metapedia. I can also see you point of view, though. Philip J. Rayment 06:09, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Gallery disclaimer

I'd like to remove or at least trim the two-point disclaimer for the Gallery because it strikes me as trivial. However, I'm waiting for Green Light From Above because it's not urgent and because there might be a deeper meaning behind it.

The first point simply says that these screenshots are JPEGs (*gasp*), and the second point seems to be senseless since Metapedia doesn't allow IP editing anyway, so there shouldn't be any IP info that had to be scrubbed. However, I admit that I didn't scan all screenshots in greater detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong. --DirkB 16:30, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the reference to JPEGs is not necessary. As for the second point, it's clear that TerryH has deleted something (presumably an IP address), although I don't understand how it came to be there. The "log in" link shows that he was not logged in, but when I look at the site, in both IE and Firefox, both on Windows, no IP shows up there. So I don't know why it did for TerryH. Given that it did, however, I don't have a problem with that particular disclaimer point. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Oh, now I see it. I can explain that one, actually. The IP shows up only under certain conditions: Go to the site (or any other wiki you're not logged in to, from what I know) and click on the "Log in" link (or any link that leads to the "Login required to edit" screen, such as a redlink). From that moment on, until you close the tab/window, the IP will be displayed there. As long as you're a nice lurker and never try to log in or hit redlinks, you won't see your IP up there. --DirkB 23:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)